Section 14 excise statements are admissible when voluntary and corroborated; retraction alone does not defeat demand and penalty.

Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are admissible, and their inculpatory portions may be relied upon where they are voluntary and not shown to have been obtained by inducement, threat, or promise under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The court treated the statement as an admission rather than a confession, found the incriminating parts corroborated by documents and other statements recovered during search, and rejected the objection based on absence of cross-examination. Retraction of the earlier statement did not destroy its evidentiary value, and the excise demand and penalty were sustained on the strength of the corroborated departmental evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were admissible and could be relied upon to sustain demand and penalty without cross-examination, and whether the retraction of an earlier statement displaced its evidentiary value.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 14 are admissible in evidence, but their inculpatory parts can be relied upon only if they are not shown to have been obtained by inducement, threat, or promise within the meaning of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statement in question was treated as an admission rather than a confession in the strict sense, and the incriminating portions were found to be corroborated by documents and other statements recovered in the search. The challenge based on absence of cross-examination did not succeed because the maker of the statement could not claim to cross-examine himself, and the other relied-upon material independently supported the departmental case. The cited authorities dealing with loose sheets, unrelated witnesses, or arrest powers were held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The statements were held to be admissible and reliable, the retraction did not dislodge their evidentiary worth, and the demand and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits as the departmental evidence, including the Section 14 statements and corroborating records, was sufficient to sustain the excise demand and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible and may support liability when its inculpatory portions are voluntary and are independently corroborated; retraction alone does not render such evidence unusable.

---